We have another contender for the village idiot. Why don't you take a look at those numbers again professor. They don't include legal representation FOR YOU. The low assumes the birth mother has insurance and the cost of birth will be zero, which anyone who has had a child knows it's not zero. As I said, I know somebody who has adopted a Korean child in the last 6 months so I know what the true costs are. A little knowledge will take you a long way.
Resolved QuestionShow me another » How much does it cost to adopt a child internationally or in the U.S.? I am from the U.S. and my husband and I have been trying awhile for baby #2 and have decided to possibly adopt. We would like a smaller child (younger than 2 yrs of age) since we do have one son now. I am just checking into it to see how much the costs would be. Could someone please advise me as to what I could expect and which would be cheaper, US or international adoption? Thanks! 11 months ago Report Abuse by Sandi Member since: October 02, 2006 Total points: 3953 (Level 4) Add to My Contacts Block User Best Answer - Chosen by Voters Typically, you are going to spend $30K+ either way depending on how it's done. We've had friends who have adopted domestically through social services. We've also had friends that have done international adoptions. Social services domestic was definitely cheaper but it also seemed to have a higher risk of the child being given back to the birth parents or various family members. After their children were placed with them, it was an additional 6 months before the child was legally theirs. With an international adoption, the process is complete before coming back to the states. My recommendation would be to truly consider why you are adopting...should you become pregnant, would you still want to adopt, etc. I say this because the agencies will ask. Sit down with your husband and gather a list of questions to ask the different agencies. Start calling around and have each send you an information packet. The expenses, etc should be listed in each of them. The agencies will also be able to tell if they do domestic and/or international (and which countries they deal with) adoptions. Best of luck and Bless your hearts for reaching out to a child in need.
Public adoptions require no lawyer at all. And in fact most states give a $2000 credit to defray public adoption costs. If your friend spent $70,000+ on lawyers fees for adoption that's quite impressive. Korea has some of the most strict parental requirements. Your error, and you've made many, is to assume that Korea's ultra-strict parental requirements are typical for adoptions in general. I have no doubt then that you're very successful, as you have a little knowledge.
When you buy and sell a house you don't need a lawyer either but you get one right?? You are a person I want to do business with. Please PM me something I can sell you.
Obama: Lucifer Is My Homeboy by Ann Coulter "It's another election season, so that means it's time for Democrats to start uttering wild malapropisms about the Bible to pretend they believe in God! In 2000, we had Al Gore inverting a Christian parable into something nearly satanic. Defending his nutty ideas about the Earth during one of the debates, Gore said: "In my faith tradition, it's written in the book of Matthew, where your heart is, there is your treasure also." And that, he said, is why we should treasure the environment. First of all, people who say "faith tradition" instead of "religion" are always phony-baloney, "Christmas and Easter"-type believers. Second, Jesus was making almost the exact opposite point, saying: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on Earth," where there are moths, rust and thieves, but in heaven, because, Jesus said, "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." I guess that's the kind of mix-up that can happen when your theological adviser is Naomi Wolf. Then in 2004, Democratic presidential candidate and future Trivial Pursuit answer Howard Dean told an interviewer that his favorite part of the New Testament was the Book of Job. The reporter should have asked him if that was his favorite book in all three testaments. And now in 2008, we have Democrats attacking Sarah Palin for being a Christian, while comparing Obama to Jesus Christ. (And not in the sarcastic way the rest of us do.) Liberals have indignantly claimed that Palin thinks the founding fathers wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, which is Olbmermannic in the sense that (a) if it were true, it's trivial, and (b) it's not true. Their claim is based on a questionnaire Palin filled out when she was running for governor of Alaska in 2006, which asked the candidates if they were "offended by the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance." Palin answered: "Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me, and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance." As anyone can see, Palin was not suggesting that the founding fathers "wrote" the Pledge of Allegiance: She said the founding fathers believed this was a country "under God." Which, um, it is. For the benefit of MSNBC viewers who aren't watching it as a joke, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was to lay out the founders' breathtaking new argument that rights came not from the king, but from God or, as the Declaration said, "Nature's God," the "Creator." That summer, in 1776, Gen. George Washington -- a charter member of the founding fathers -- rallied his troops, saying: "The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves. ... The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of the army." So Washington not only used the phrase "under God," but gave us one of the earliest known references to the rights of the "unborn." That's right! George Washington was a "pro-life extremist," just like Sarah Palin. There is no disputing that a nation "under God" was "good enough" for the founding fathers, exactly as Palin said. Meanwhile, on the House floor last week, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee compared Palin to Pontius Pilate -- and Obama to Jesus. Cohen said: "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor." Yes, who can forget the Biblical account of how Jesus got the homeless Samaritan to register as a Democrat in exchange for a carton of smokes! Rep. Cohen would be well-advised to stay away from New Testament references. As anyone familiar with the New Testament can confirm for him, there are no parables about Jesus passing out cigarettes for votes, lobbying the Romans for less restrictive workfare rules or filing for grants under the Community Redevelopment Act. No time for soul-saving now! First, we lobby Fannie Mae to ease off those lending standards and demand a windfall profits tax on the money-changers in the temple. David Freddoso's magnificent new book, The Case Against Barack Obama describes the forefather to "community organizers" like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- the famed Saul Alinsky. Alinsky is sort of the George Washington of "community organizers." If there were an America-hater's Mount Rushmore, Saul Alinsky would be on it. He tried to hire Hillary to work for him right out of Wellesley. A generation later, those who had trained with Alinsky did hire Obama as a community organizer. In Freddoso's book , he quotes from the dedication in the first edition of Alinsky's seminal book, "Rules for Radicals," where Alinsky wrote: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer." I suppose it could have been worse. He could have dedicated his book to George Soros. Even liberals eventually figured out that they shouldn't be praising Satan in public, so the Lucifer-as-inspiration paragraph was cut from later editions of Alinsky's book. (But on the bright side, MSNBC adopted as its motto: "Who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which.") That's exactly what happens to most Democratic ideas -- as soon as they are said out loud, normal people react with revulsion, so Democrats learn to pretend they never said them: I was NOT comparing Palin to a pig! I did not play the race card! I did not say I would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions! Sarah Palin might be just the lucky break the Democrats need. As a staunch pro-lifer, Palin could give Democrats an excuse to steer away from topics they know nothing about, like the Bible , and onto a subject they know chapter and verse, like abortion."
Excellent article, and true too. I read this early this am, didn't think to post it though. But all the lefts are going to accuse Ann Coulter of being a racist, which they already have.
Sorry BigDave, But I thought those were the issues that the Dems always debate. Think you got that wrong. As far as the country going in the toilet, I think you can thank the Democratic Congress for that. In particular, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi,and last but not least..... Good old BARNEY FRANK!
Some of them do that, the smarter ones recognize a good competitor when the see one, like Ann. No problemo
Capital punishment for murderers, murderer/rapists, pedophiles? Left says no. Burning "unviable" fetuses to death? Left says by all means, let's have a barbecue. As for the adoption issue, I have relatives who have adopted children from abroad, i.e. China. Cost back then was 15K +. Now it's 20K +. Reason they did it - far more expensive in US.